The Independent Investigations Office came into effect after the Braidwood Inquiry. Justice Braidwood found inaccuracies within the RCMP internal review report concerning the tasering of Polish immigrant, Robert Dziekanski Vancouver International Airport. Justice Braidwood decided in the inquiry that it was a bad idea for the police to investigate police and that an independent investigations body should be established to investigate police incidents where there were accounts death or serious harm. The IIO would investigate police officer conduct to see if the officer was liable to criminal charges. The Independent Investigations Office is set up in the Ministry of Justice and is under the command and direction of the Chief Civilian Director, and the Chief Civilian Director cannot ever have served as a police officer (iiobc, 2015).

The mandate of the Independent Investigations Office is simple; they investigate police incidents where there as been a death or serious harm and the IIO is tasked to investigate whether the police officer in that incident has committed a criminal offence. Incidents of serious harm may include injuries that could result in death, “or may cause substantial loss or impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any limb or organ”(iiobc, 2015). The IIO, the RCMP and other police departments in British Columbia launch investigations in accordance to the Criminal Code of Canada and perhaps other statutes.

The Independent Investigations Office is headed by Chief Civilian Director, Richard Rosenthal. Prior to becoming the head of the IIO, Rosenthal was a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney. He worked in the Central Trials Division, where he prosecuted felony violations and homicides. After working in the Central Trials Division Rosenthal investigated high profile financial offences in the Major Fraud Division. Richard also worked in the Special Investigation Division, prosecuting public officials, judges, and police officers who were engaged in misconduct. In 2001 Rosenthal created Portland first police oversight body. In 2005 Rosenthal was charged with heading Denver’s first Independent Monitor that investigated incidents of officer shooting as well as in-custody deaths. Clinton J. Sadlemyer is the IIO’s Director of Legal Services. Sadlemyer has practiced criminal law and was once a crown prosecutor. He is also a member of the Canadian Bar Association. John Larkin is the Chief of Investigations. He has racked up 30 years of police experience in England and Northern Ireland. Larkin has headed operations into homicides and has been in charge of counter terrorism investigations. Larkin has also leaded investigations into police misconduct, especially in cases involving officers involved in murder. Barbara Kaiway is the Director of Corporate Services. Kaiway has been a public servant for more than 30 years and has a background in finance and administration. Kellie Kilpatrick is the Executive Director of Public Accountability. Kilpatrick is a specialist in Child Welfare and her current role,is to be “responsible for those IIO programs that interface with external stakeholders, affected persons, and media, other Government Ministries and for public reporting”(iiobc, 2015).

The Independent Office of Investigations has four general investigative teams as well as a specialized team, and in addition every team is headed by a director. About half of the investigators are former police officers, but “those without policing backgrounds have significant experience in other investigative agencies”(iiobc, 2015). All IIO investigators have to be civilians “with investigative experience, a former member of a police or law enforcement agency outside of British Columbia, or a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”(Leg.bc, 2011) .The Specialized Unit has investigators with experience in forensic identification and collision analysis. The IIO also monitors police officers who are gathering evidence at the scene of a crime.

Currently the IIO is investigating a case of the stabbing rampage that took place a few weeks ago in front of the First United Church on Hastings and Gore. On that day the Vancouver Police Department received “reports of a man stabbing people near the First United Church”(CBC, 2015) in the Downtown East Side. Once police showed up they found an individual in possession of a knife who was just outside of the First United Church. The man with the knife then targeted a woman, police then shot the man. The woman was in critical condition and two other individuals “were treated for non life-threatening injuries”(CBC, 2015). It was noted that the police tried to take the suspect into custody. After the incident the IIO was called in and they conducted a neighborhood canvass; they interviewed witnesses, secured any video, and were seeking out any other information that may be available”(iiobc, 2015).

The future of the IIO is strong. It is a true accountability body. Civilians do not have to worry about the problems of police investigating police. Most of the IIO investigators are retired police officers, lawyers, and public servants. To add, the heads of the organization are members who belong to the international community. Most of the directors were not even born in Canada, and there is a strict rule in that the chief civilian director can never have served as a police officer; this further extends the point that the IIO is an impartial civilian oversight body. The IIO is an organization that will last long because their members have years and years of experience and they don’t have current ties or allegiance to any police organization while they are investigating the police.

Fictional representations of policing usually are the opposite of what policing is actually like in reality. Popular culture tends to focus on police deviance instead of showcasing the core values of policing. It does not only illustrate it, but it also depicts the practice of police deviance as something which is normal. An example of a fictional representation of policing which features police deviance as a major theme is, the 2006 American Hollywood film, “The Departed.”

In this film, two of the main characters, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) and Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) play a role as police officers. Sullivan is recruited at a young age by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), an Irish-American mobster. When he grows older, he gets a job as a police officer with the state police force, and works with the Special Investigations Unit which focuses on organized crime. However, his purpose behind getting this job was so that he could get information from the inside and keep Costello informed. On the other hand, Costigan, who comes from a background of extended family ties to organized crime, also wants to become a police officer. However, before he is able to graduate from the police academy, the state police force’s captain and staff sergeant approach him. After meeting him they decide to offer him a position as a police officer only on one condition, which is that he quit the police academy, be charged and sentenced to serve some time in prison for a fake assault charge, so that he can gain credibility to infiltrate Costello’s organization. They believe that due to his ties with people involved with organized crime, he fits the perfect role to work with the criminal organization, as an undercover police officer. Both Sullivan and Costigan are successful in gaining entry and are accepted into the organizations in which they will act as a mole.

Sullivan portrays a corrupt police officer by maintaining ties with a criminal organization. He is involved by working for the criminal organization run by Costello, as well as protecting them. He would be classified as a uniform carrier because his motive is not that of a typical police officer (Punch, 2009). According to Roebuck and Barker (1974), Sullivan’s corruption is motivated by the pursuit of gain, specifically that which is known as the “protection of illegal activities.” For example, he releases information to Costello, to help him escape and prevent getting caught. Sullivan is aware of all police operations and warns Costello of them. Without the information that he has access to, it would be difficult for Costello to easily get away undetected. This explains why Costello had prepared for boats to be waiting outside at the back of the warehouse location where he was meeting to make a deal to sell stolen missile guidance microchips to Chinese government agents. Sullivan misuses his police authority because he has a criminal collusion with organized crime. He abuses the office, power, and trust and also violates the norms of policing therefore he is seen as being corrupt and deviant (Punch, 2009). Gilmartin (2006) explains that police officers are known to become corrupt as a result of entitlement, which is when they believe that the rules do not apply to them.

Costigan is a police officer who is using police deviance to handle things. Specifically, he is involved in using police misconduct, which is known as the act of violating the rules, policies, and procedures of the police force (Larsen, 2015). For example, he uses violent tactics to deal with people, and is seen to assault people on a number of occasions. Once at a bar and another at the store. He is portrayed as a police officer who deals with things his own way, which is to fight. As Van Maanen (2005) would say, Costigan uses excessive force. However, a different approach could have been used to handle the situations. The implicatory denial technique of neutralization can also be applied to Costigan because he justified his actions since he is working undercover for the police and is only trying to help them by gathering information which may help in their investigation.

In conclusion, both Sullivan and Costigan’s behaviour is not consistent with the norms, values, or ethics of policing. They do not carry the core values of the police agency, especially honesty, since dishonesty is seen as a big issue in this film. Thus, “The Departed” depicts the role of police in a completely fictional manner. I do not think that society is affected or misguided in any way. Everyone is aware that movies are only for entertainment purposes. Our society has an interest in things which are out of the ordinary. In the movie industry, things like this sell. I think most people are able to differentiate between what is fiction and what is non-fiction. They know that films are dramatized and do not portray the real world of policing. Although, police deviance and corruption does exist in reality, it does not exist to this extent that it is considered a common practice. The core values and ethics of policing in reality are much different than those in the film industry.

The common tropes, themes, and messages which are conveyed through this media representation of police wrongdoing include that police deviance and corruption is a normal practice occurring in all police organizations, the police are able to create their own rules, they are always ready to fight, and they are never punished for doing such things, but rather are praised and rewarded for doing so. Instead of letting the courts handle things, police are usually seen taking things into their own hands by beating people up, leaving them to die, or killing them. Another thing which many fiction pieces show include police officers have sexual encounters with people they should only have a professional relationship with. In conclusion, to simplify things, many of the acts, values, and behaviours which would be deemed as unacceptable, deviant, or unethical in reality, are shown as a normal form of policing which is acceptable.

This weekly television show follows the Intelligence Unit of the Chicago Police Department, which deals with major crimes like drug trafficking and high-profile murders. Sgt. Hank Voight — a tough boss who doesn’t mind bending the rules a little in the pursuit of justice — heads the unit’s elite team. Sergeant Voight’s motto is “We don’t ask for permission, we ask for forgiveness”.

Sergeant Voight is a classic “Noble Causer” as defined by Punch (2009). He is committed to the ends of policing, he believes in his role as a crime stopper. He is so committed to the end means of policing, that he is willing to employ deviant methods to achieve those ends. My irritation is not about the Noble Cause tendencies of Sergeant Voight, it is of the fact that at the end of every episode he is praised for his “good work”. He is not doing good work in my opinion. He is reinforcing the notion that police are “above the law”, and need not obey policies and laws as long as they apprehend someone at the end of the day. Furthermore, Voight is the supervisor of all of the other police men and women on this show, and he encourages them to take whatever measures are necessary in order to apprehend and charge any offender. The core values of a policing agency are completely ignored by this unit: fairness, trustworthiness and professionalism are not evident in any area of this television depiction of a police organization.

Voight is constantly under investigation from Internal Affairs (IA), but always manages to avoid sanctions because of the “results” he produces. Naturally, Voight always defends his officers when they are investigated by IA as well, calling them “good police” too many times to count throughout the season. Voight is glorifying the term “good police” as an officer who solves cases and apprehends dangerous individuals. What he does not address is the psychological harming intimidation tactics, as well the constant use of unnecessary physical force that these “good police” use. There is no line nor distinction between corrupt and uncorrupt in this show, because all of the officers exhibit corrupt behaviour that is ultimately praised.

A common underlying theme conveyed through media representations of police wrongdoing center on the understanding that deviance and “bending the rules” is acceptable as long as criminals are caught and locked up. As a Criminology student, I despise this rationalization. I firmly believe in the due process model. An individual is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, and it is not the police department’s job to take on a “judge and jury” role. I become weary of the fact that millions of individuals exposure to policing rests on weekly television shows such as Chicago PD. If this is the education that society is receiving about policing, how is the public expected to hold any police organizations accountable any of their actions besides apprehending “criminals”?

Although I recognize that fiction is not always trying to represent reality, I believe Chicago PD is attempting to recreate incidents and relationships within a police precinct. Naturally, the paperwork portion of an officer’s job would not make for thrilling television. So the realistically infrequent cases of kidnappings, million dollar drug busts, and serial killing are incorporated into every weekly episode.

Because this television show is depicted as a “typical” police organization, public perceptions about the deviant practices police as well as their abuse of authority become normalized. This should be worrisome, as these characteristics have potential for run-off into the real world policing which is not only possible, but also admired.

The Shield, an American drama series premiering March 12, 2002, is notoriously known for its reoccurring theme of police corruption and misconduct. This is a popular series focusing on a group of detectives from the LAPD called the Strike Team, which is essentially portrayed as an anti-gang division. The Strike Team is lead by detective Vic Mackey, a crude man that promotes his unethical and deviant police problem-solving tactics which include excessive force, lying, and stealing, among others, with the intention of protecting his team, prosecuting criminals, and maintaining order on the streets. Even focusing on the first episode only, there are several examples of Vic demonstrating police deviance and misconduct that are presented and dealt with in a way that infers it is not out of the norm.

Vic is first introduced chasing a suspect alongside other officers. Once cornered, the suspect surrenders prompting a punch in the stomach from Vic for “making [him] run”, displaying clear police brutality. The next time we see him he’s lying to his department about an offender’s complaint against him of excessive force (in this case, involving a pair of pliers). His denial was followed by him stating that his team will back him up as well. Later on while looking for information, Vic runs into a well-known prostitute with who he exchanges a bag of drugs (recently confiscated from a dealer) for information. A major theme within this team, especially promoted by Vic, is that, to quote him, “Team comes first. We take care of each other” , and “We’d kill to protect each other.” This code strays away from the ideal fundamental principals that the officers of British Columbia operate, such as democracy & the rule of law, safeguarding the public trust, justice and equality (British Columbia Code of Ethics, 2011).

Vic later, as a last resort, joins the interrogation team and has a one-on-one sit down with a suspected pedophile in hopes of revealing of a little girl, Jenny Reborg. Following his statement “Good cop and bad cop left for the day. I’m a different kind of cop”, Vic struck him in the throat and begins beating him with a phone book. Vic successfully obtained his confession via his old school, and clearly illegal, interrogation tactics. Whilst watching Vic beat the suspect through the window, one of the female detectives speaks on the topic of police use of excessive force: “What people want these days is to make it to their car without getting mugged…finding out a murderer is caught…if all that means that some cop roughed up some n****r or sp*c in the ghetto, well as far as most people are concerned, it’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. How do you figure on changing that?” None of his team members observing through the one-way mirror spoke out about the incident.

The last few minutes of the episode ends with the strike team doing a raid of a suspected drug dealers house; this raid included detective Terry Rowley who was new to the department and a rookie to raid assignments. After shooting the drug dealer in the bathroom who was flushing his stash, there was no longer any perceived danger. Vic turns around and shoots his collegue Terry Crowley in the face. He was pronounced dead at 2:13pm. When confronted about the incident, Vic and his team are adamant that it was the drug dealer who shot detective Crowley in the face. It is revealed later that the detective was added to the team to “take Vic Mackey down”. The fact that none of Vic’s team members spoke out about this incident or any before it, enforces their code of “Team comes first. We take care of each other” and normalizes this behaviour. This only further encourages these kinds of actions; silence is the voice of complicity.

The police deviance and corruption typologies that Vic Mackey best exemplifies based on his actions in this first episode are those of the “meat-eaters” and the “Dirty Harrys” / “Noble Causers”, with a slight undertone of “Cowboys”. The “meat-eaters” fall under the Knapp Commission typology and they actively seek opportunities in which they can exchange their power for some kind of benefit (Punch, 2009). In Vic’s case, he displayed characteristics of a meat-eater when he exchanged drugs for information with the prostitute. “Dirty Harrys” / “Noble Causers” on the other hand, are officers that use deviant and unethical tactics in order to obtain their desired outcome (Punch, 2009). Vic proved to be a Dirty Harry when he unethically assaulted the pedophile suspect aiming for a confession. The “cowboys” are known for their high levels of aggression and propensity to act tough, lack discipline, and be action-focused (Punch, 2009), which Vic assumed the role of in the beginning of the show when he punched the suspect in the stomach for causing a chase.

This fictional portrayal of law enforcement officers focuses on their corruption and deviance, and places them in the antagonist position. This representation does not emanate positive, trust-worthy vibes to its audience. Its audience is majorly regular, non-police affiliated individuals who, after watching media portrayals such as this, do not walk away feeling a healthy and more trustworthy bond with law enforcement. Instead, because their only peak into what police conduct looks like has been through the lens of fictional media. There is a lot of negative stimuli being presented through the media pertaining to police corruption and deviance, the public sees a lot of it, and for those that have very little pre-existing knowledge or information , they may be influenced and that allows the potential for their perception towards law enforcement to change. The line between entertainment and reality becomes blurred.

Vic’s blatant displays of police deviance through abuse of authority, unethical practices, and use of excessive force illustrates model officer-deviant behaviour. These corruption-oriented, emphasized, and normalized media representations of law enforcement may have a potential impact on the audiences’ perception of positive and trustworthy qualities pertaining to police officer conduct. That potential blur between fiction and non-fiction holds the possibility of bruised perceptions and subsequent trust with the police.

One of this decade’s most discussed and anticipated developments, police body-mounted cameras, have been gaining more support as of late, and are subsequently becoming more widely implemented as a result of several cataclysmic events themed on police deviance and misconduct; excessive use of force, police shootings, etc. Such events as the Ferguson shooting has contributed to this up-rise and near obsession with being able to watch the watchers. Obama is in full support of this modifications to law enforcement attire and has even made a pricey contribution, yet, there are still some in power who are reluctant to follow his decision despite contemporary research evidence in support of it. These new body-mounted cameras have generated controversial discussion already with public-police relationships and further impact on both the perception and acts of police deviance.

The demand for police body-mounted cameras is a demand to install a light into a long-darkened room; to satisfy the needs of the public and criminal justice system for a definitive record when it comes to police deviance and misconduct; as objective and ominous evidence. The death of Michael Brown by Ferguson police fueled the fire for protests against police misconduct and inspired subsequent demand for video documentation of police activities. Michael Brown, who was 18 years old, was shot multiple times in the head and chest by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, despite what witnesses account for as Brown holding his hands up in surrender (Cavaliere, 2014). A campaign further supporting this was launched by Michael Brown’s parents a few months ago after another cataclysmic event, a viral video of the shooting of Cleveland 12-year old Tamir Rice, created to “ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera” (Brandom, par 2, 2014).

Announced in early December of last year, federal funding was increased when the White House pledged $263 million, $75 million of which was to be specifically used in the purchase of 50,000 new cameras (which is a lot for only covering only a fraction of employed officers in America). The additional funding will be divided up between police-community trust-oriented outreach programs, and police training that enforces instruction pertaining to the use of paramilitary equipment (Brandom, 2014). This is an addition to the six-month pilot program that the Washington D.C police began on October 1st of last year, a program that is still going on and cost $1 million initially for cameras.

There are those who are in support of this new policy, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and then there are those who oppose them, saying that these cameras have the potential to be an invasion of privacy and may hinder the public from approaching police with information (Cavaliere, 2014). Whether in support of opposition, there have been several departments who have implemented this policy, Ferguson being one of them. When Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson discussed the addition of body-mounted cameras to his team, he mentioned that the receiving officers were without reluctance in that they “are really enjoying them,” and that “they are trying to get used to using them” (Cavaliere, par 8, 2014). Of course, not everyone is in support of this legislation. In fact, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh is adamantly opposed to the use of body cameras for his police officers. Walsh is quoted in an interview stating, “No. I don’t think it’s needed in Boston today. It’s a tool that people are talking about. There’s an experiment going on in Worcester right now…with body cameras. That’s something that we’ll see what shows with that experiment” (Enwemeka, par 7, 2014). Walsh further comments that he does not believe that the cameras will assist in mending the fundamental issues between the communities and the police (Enwemeka, 2014). Marty Walsh’s statements implied that he is reluctant for body cameras at this time, but that this future decision may rely on the success of the cameras in neighboring departments.And that is essentially what these attire additions are right now; they’re experiments, trial runs. If the benefits outweigh the costs, body cameras have the potential to become mandatory.

There have been legitimate experiments conducted measuring the effectiveness of body cameras and officers as well, such as a yearlong study completed by Chief Tony Farrar of Rialto California Police Department’s patrol officers. “We randomly assigned a year’s worth of shifts into experimental and control shifts within a large randomized controlled field experiment…we investigated the extent to which cameras effect human behavior and, specifically, reduce the use of police force” (The Police Foundation, p. 2, 2013). The results of this 12 month study showed the patrol shifts not using cameras came into twice as many use of force incidents than the shifts with officers wearing the cameras. As for public complaints against officers, in the 12 month period during the study there were only three complaints filed, as opposed to the 28 complaints filed in the 12 months proceeding the study (The Police Foundation, 2013). “The findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force compared to control conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12 months prior to the experiment (The Police Foundation, p. 9, 2013). This study illustrated a significant effect on both use of force and public complaints against officers. This may be a foreshadow of the kind of results to come from wider implementation. There is some skepticism raised around the issues of privacy, as Cheryl Distaso asserts regarding the potential body camera addition to the Fort Collins Police Department. Distaso, with the Fort Collins Community Acton Network, addresses public concern stating “police officers might be able to turn them off when their behavior is questionable…[and] police officers enter people’s homes. They enter their personal space. And there is no way to opt out (CBS, par 8-11, 2013). Distaso also added, among issues of invasion of privacy, that it’s a general concern that the policy pertaining to the cameras was designed without the public’s input. This raises red flags for some citizens. Goldsmith (2010) argues that there are negative impacts upon the department and law enforcement deploying these cameras as well, as it produces a new visibility into their conduct. “Their uncontrolled visibility diminishes their power, making the surveillance of others less possible at times and exposing them to disciplinary and legal liability. Visibility of less flattering or illegal practices challenges their operation sovereignty based in anonymity and observation (Goldsmith, p. 915, 2010). He goes on to say that their have been negative consequences for police organizations due to the new communicative technologies and their social networking, and that, although these new technologies may increase the public’s perception of police accountability, it proportionally decreases their account ability (Goldsmith, 2010).

Despite the issues around skepticism about officer body camera use, there are bigger and more serous issues around police use of force and community and police trust and accountability. More serious issues that, according to Chief Tony Farrar’s study, these sorts of recording devices seem to heavily impact. As more research is conducted on more departments experimenting with this tool, we’ll have more information that will assist in whichever direction we decide to go with body mounted cameras. If there are certain areas and communities that have a real problem with use of force and with community-law enforcement relationships, based on what evidence has been concluded so far, the benefits would outweigh the costs when pertaining to whether or not police should wear body mounted cameras.

Movie industries all over the world have always had its own take on how policing takes place. However, there are many misconceptions about police officers that are portrayed in these movies. Some movies tend to portray police officers as overly masculine, always-right, gets the job done on time, helps people in the community etc. Whereas, in other movies police officers are depicted as racist, alcoholic, dumber than average, unprofessional and other negative things. Some of these characteristics are seen in the movie 22 Jump Street.
22 Jump Street is an action comedy film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. This movie was a follow up of 21 Jump Street. The two main characters in the movie are two police officers Schmidt and Jenko who are on the streets chasing narcotics. The Deputy Chief Hardy puts the two officers into an assignment where they go undercover as college students and locate the supplier of a drug known as “WHYPHY” (Work Hard Yes Play Hard Yes) that killed a student photographer buying it on campus. As the movie goes on these two police officers break almost every rule of policing to get the job done. Just like the Dirty Harry movies. The police officers demonstrated many forms of corrupt policing throughout the movie. Living a double life in a new environment presented many problems.
The depiction of police in “22 Jump Street” is not necessarily realistic in any way, shape or form. This gives a very wrong public perception of law enforcement officers. The two cops Schmidt and Jenko are portrayed as these cops that hold a below average common sense and are lazy. In addition, they are also depicted as cops that tend to be “fools” of the situations they find themselves in.
The movie starts with a recap of what happens in “21 Jump Street”. One of the clips used in the recap is of the two cops on bicycles strolling through the park and playing with their firearms, displaying the lack of duties and responsibilities they need to fulfill.
The movie quickly then shifts gears and the two officers (Jenko & Schmidt) are sent to college to solve the given case. For this assignment the department gives the officers an extremely large budget. This includes extensive amounts/variety of firearms, money and other facilities that they do not require to solve the case. Usually, this type of representation makes the public think that their local police department
As the officers get into their assignment, Jenko starts making friends with a pair of jocks named Zook and Rooster. He starts attending parties with the jocks to help him solve the case. However, partying with the college students starts to push Jenko away from his real purpose of being there. Meanwhile, Schmidt starts to talk to an art student, Maya, as he was trying to figure out about the killed student. Later on in the movie, Schmidt and Maya have sexual intercourse with each other. In addition, when Schmidt shares this news with others in the department they give him a pat on the back as it was seen as a great accomplishment for him. This went to show how it was normal for police officers to sleep and party with people without any consequences and it was an accepted norm.
Overtime when the officers fail to find the dealer or any leads per say, they turn to an “expert” for help. The “expert” being an inmate in the jail (that they caught in the last movie). The inmate tells the two to look more closely as he notices a unique tattoo on the arm of the dealer in the photograph. He insists that if they find the tattoo, they will have found their man. The clip shows how the police officers were unable to do their job and had to turn to an ex-criminal for assistant to solve the case. In addition, the way that the inmate speaks to the officer shows that there is no need for people/inmates to talk to people in the position of authority with respect.
They figure out that the person with the tattoo in the picture is just one of the jocks that buys the drugs rather than selling them. But, soon after they find the suspect on the college campus but are unable to catch him.
Closer to the end of the movie, Jenko discloses to Schmidt that he’s been offered a football scholarship and is unsure whether he wants to continue to be a police officer. Jenko was clearly unhappy with his job and the scholarship seemed as a great idea to him. He failed to realize the fact that he was still an undercover police officer and this was a fake life that he was living.
Near the climax, spring break arrives and Schmidt prepares to go after secret suspect alone. Nevertheless, Jenko asks to help so that the two can have one final mission together, and the pair head to the beach where suspect is likely to be dealing WHYPHY. They end up catching him and the movie ends with the two officers solving the case together.
If “22 Jump Street” was compared to a real life police department it would match up in almost no way or form. It fails to follow any of the general core values of policing such as honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect and accountability. However, we have to keep in mind that this movie is made solely for entertainment purposes. And what the public likes to see is things that are far from the normal. Such as, police officers playing with dangerous weapons like they are toys, officers sleeping with people, accidentally trying drugs themselves and so on. In conclusion, movies like this are made for entertainment purposes only and consumers of this type of entertainment should in no way or form take the main themes or messages conveyed by the media as the real forms of policing.

Sons of Anarchy is the story of a motorcycle club involved in gun-running and other deals with rival gangs, and the authorities. The story revolves around the Vice-President and future president of the club, Jackson “Jax” Teller and his dealings. They run several businesses, which may include illegal and legal works. Along with gun-running, they also operate a garage under their name. There are a couple different aspects to the show, one of them is related to the family life of Jackson. In this aspect, a lot of emphasis is put on Jackson, his wife and his kids. It is a constant battle between spending time with them and running errands for the club. For each of the members, their families get put on the back burner as they consider their work at the club a huge priority. The second aspect of the show would be club business. Their business mostly involves the exportation of guns at a large scale. It also focuses on their rivalries with other gangs in the area, politicians and authorities. The final and third aspect of the show is the role of the authorities. The officers in this show are shown as very corrupt and deceiving. Throughout the series, either they could go against the law and cooperate with SAMCRO, or they could fight against them and create havoc in the whole community. They were always torn between laws and peace.

They lived in a town named Charming, which was a contradiction to the realities of that town. There usually was a lot of bloodshed on and off due to the rival gangs retaliating to SAMCRO’s every step. The club consisted of several members along with a support system of some of their family members and friends. There is a President and Vice- President, all decisions must go through them, however, every decision must also get the opinion of every single member of the club. In order for them to be successful in their business, they always needed backup from their police department. The Chief of the Police, Wayne Unser, was a corrupted chief due to his dealings with the club. He would pass on highly sensitive information based on his own knowledge. This kept their business deal afloat. Unser understood that the deal with the club would keep outside violence and drugs out of Charming. In several instances, even the constables and jail guards would conspire with the club for the greater good. The constables were always in a turmoil, they were stuck between legal work and peace. It was a known fact that SAMCRO was a dangerous group of bikers who would go to any lengths if they felt threatened by anyone. Considering this at all times, some of the members of the Charming Police Department would make a deal with the club to avoid havoc. They could go against the club, however, they knew that would only result in more bloodshed.

After Unser’s retirement, we were introduced to another police officer named David Hale. His ultimate goal was to drive out SAMCRO from Charming. However, just like every other police officer in the show, Hale noticed that a deal with the club members would eventually be of some help to the department. He also began to work with some of the members in the club because he knew some of the rivals would destroy their town.

On of the officers, Eli Roosevelt, was known for his incorruptible reputation. He was given the responsibility to observe the club and stop the gun-trade. Initially, he implanted several rules that would create restrictions for the club members when they were out and about. By the end of one of the seasons, he had formed a special bond with one of the members named Juice. Occasionally he would seal a deal with Jax Teller and work towards a common goal, however, he was known for his honesty and he maintained it.

The last police officer that we saw on the show was Althea Jarry. Just like the rest of them she came off as a cop who was ready to take down the club. It all started with hatred towards the club and eventually understanding the reason for their cooperation. Jarry became romantically involved with one of the club members, Chibs. She tried to force information out of him as an honesty agreement in their relationship, but Chibs would never give up his club.

Furthermore, the way the media and shows present police officers is highly dependent on what the audience is expecting. It is always more entertaining for the audience when there is more drama, therefore, portraying police officers as negative may fulfill that demand. We know for a fact that a show which portrays the actual duties of a police officer would never succeed. People are not interested in the paper work and daily reports that they have to allocate their time on. This gives us a general perception of what is expected of television shows these days. Furthermore, any major wrongdoing committed by an officer is highlighted in every newspaper, yet they fail to broadcast the positive and commendable actions. Moreover, there is a major gap between what we see and what actually happens. Television shows are not broadcasted as realistic depictions of the manner with which they function. It is usually an exaggeration to grasp the attention of their audience. In this show, Sons of Anarchy, similar to every other show the actions of police department are shown way out of proportion. Chasing criminals at fast speeds, shooting at every chance they find, and solving all of the crimes does not represent reality. Police officers have to take action based on reasonable grounds and not suspicious, moreover, they also have to be aware of all the bystanders who could possibly be injured in the action.

At one stage in life, when we cannot tell the right from wrong, what we see on television is the truth for us. Things we may see on TV may jeopardize our thinking as we grow older. However, It would also be false to state that all the facts observed in shows are wrong. That is not the case. If were to look at how the Head of Police and the others acted out during a shooting or other chaos, we may see some similarities between fiction and reality. In the show, we saw that some of the members of the club were involved with certain police officers which they would use both ways. They both fed off the knowledge they had, to attain one goal, peace in their communities.

In 2013, Montreal Police Force’s leading expert on biker gangs, Benoit Roberge, was arrested due to allegations of him conspiring with one of the gang members he was observing. He was accused of sharing sensitive information about a police investigation regarding that gang. He had just recently been assigned to a specialized unit, which was formed using different police forces that focused on biker gang activities (Canadian Press, 2013). Another case such as this was revealed in Chicago, where a former veteran police officer was arrested for making a deal with a local gang to rob their rivals of their treasures. (Meisner, 2013)

As for the themes and messages that are received from these shows include the emphasis on police wrongdoing. All cases of wrongdoing are highlighted and broadcasted in every show to attract attention. An individual who took an oath to protect and serve the community doing the opposite grasps the attention of many. Concepts that we see in these are not necessarily reality, yet, they are not all false either. We see a mixture of reality and fiction and we get to decide how we wish to interpret it.